nut/saddle: bone or synthetic material?

J

joakiml

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2017
Messages
47
Reaction score
0
What is your preference in terms of saddle (and nut) material, bone or synthetic material like nubone or similar?

In terms of making the nuts and saddles synthetic materials seems to be a bit more pleasant to work with (bone is quite smelly for one thing). Perhaps this is one reason many manufacturers are choosing synthetic materials.
 
Graphtech Tusq or Tusk XL. Consistent, resonant and easy to work with. Slick, so the strings don't hang up in the nut slots or across the saddle. And no, I don't buy the argument that bone (or walrus tusk, or mammoth ivory, etc., etc.) sounds better.
 
joakiml said:
What is your preference in terms of saddle (and nut) material, bone or synthetic material like nubone or similar?

In terms of making the nuts and saddles synthetic materials seems to be a bit more pleasant to work with (bone is quite smelly for one thing). Perhaps this is one reason many manufacturers are choosing synthetic materials.
Click to expand...

Bone doesn't smell too bad until you use power tools. I like bone, personally.
 
Swamp Yankee said:
I like bone, personally.
Click to expand...

Plus one.

I can’t say that I’ve done rigoursous trials but replacing man made synthetic materials with simple bone seems to give a better sound to my ears. Some folk might have ethical reasons (vegan / vegetarian) not to use bone but I don’t share those and instead think it more eco to use bone than a man made material.
 
I think that "synthetic" materials have received a bad rep mostly from cheap plastic nuts and saddles. Bone certainly sounds better than cheap plastic, but I sure can't tell any difference between bone and high tech synthetics such as Nubone or Tusk or even basic Micarta.
 
The difference between bone and Tusq is very evident in two ways. One...Drop one on a table then drop the other, the Tusq will chime and bone is duller sounding. Two....plugged in Tusq is solid and transmits a clean signal with no variance, bone which is porous and has internal inconsistencies can not send as clean and pure a signal.
 
in a vacuum, i pick bone.
nubone is softer and the strings can start to wear small grooves in it, esp if you use wounds.
I cant honestly say I can hear a problem with the grooves, but knowing they are there bothers me.
 
It's all marketing guff!

Until someone can show me oscilloscope and spectrum analysis plots made under controlled conditions of the differences I won't believe it.

What graphs that are published inevitably have obvious inaccuracies and omissions that make them useless to anyone except the uneducated.

Just because some graphic artist marketeer came up with a technical-looking image claiming to demonstrate the advantages of their new wonder product doesn't mean the claims are true!

I'll save the money I could spend on fancy-named gizmos and use it for important stuff that will benefit my playing, like good strings and more sheet music!

:music:
 
I had a tenor with an ebony nut and saddle. Unremarkable sound but that was probable more to do with the strings. Yes, I was too lazy to try different strings.
 
kypfer said:
It's all marketing guff!

Until someone can show me oscilloscope and spectrum analysis plots made under controlled conditions of the differences I won't believe it.
Click to expand...

I agree. And even then, if it take an oscilloscope to see the difference, does it really matter in the real world? I think many of the expensive components of ukuleles do more for the ego of the owner than for the sound of the uke. That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it. :eek:
 
I'm not sure about the latest formulas used in Tusq nuts, but on some of the slightly older Larrivee and Taylor guitars I've seen, the Tusq nuts and saddles have taken on a burnt umber color, through aging, that I don't like at all.

Unbleached bone nuts that I have seen on tenor banjos from the 1920s still look great, and are still doing their job well all these years later.
 
Last edited:
I personally think the drop test proves nothing, Tusq works better in a mic situation, but it wears 3 times faster than bone. I use bone, period.

Ukulelerick9255 said:
The difference between bone and Tusq is very evident in two ways. One...Drop one on a table then drop the other, the Tusq will chime and bone is duller sounding. Two....plugged in Tusq is solid and transmits a clean signal with no variance, bone which is porous and has internal inconsistencies can not send as clean and pure a signal.
Click to expand...
 
I discovered Tusq when buying acoustic guitars back in the day and I always liked the tone and feel. I have put a reasonable amount of mileage on my guitars which have wound strings and I've had no wear issues to date so, I can't imagine my fluorocarbon strings wearing them out if my wound strings haven't. If I had to replace a saddle or nut on my ukuleles I would not use bone, it's a personal thing for me. I am open to new materials but Tusq is my go-to at present.
 
spookelele said:
in a vacuum, i pick bone.
nubone is softer and the strings can start to wear small grooves in it, esp if you use wounds.
I cant honestly say I can hear a problem with the grooves, but knowing they are there bothers me.
Click to expand...

I’ve had the same issue with bone saddles also. I favour wound 3rd & 4th strings and am a heavy strummer. I think that saddles May just be a consumable for me.
 
BlackBearUkes said:
I personally think the drop test proves nothing, Tusq works better in a mic situation, but it wears 3 times faster than bone. I use bone, period.
Click to expand...

I'd be very interested in knowing where that wear information came from. It does not reflect my experience.
 
It comes from my experience as a luthier and repairman for the last 20 years. The wear mostly comes from folks changing strings over a regular time period, say about one month. When someone brings a guitar in for setup work or repair, Tusq saddles and nuts need replacing far more often than bone. If the person rarely changes strings the wear is less but still there. I've had older guitars in that have bone saddles and nuts, sometimes over 50 years old and the wear is slight but there. Show me a Tusq saddle that reaches 50 years old and I'll guarantee you the groves in it will reach the wood on the bridge. You may not agree but this is my experience with bone and Tusq.

Uke Don said:
I'd be very interested in knowing where that wear information came from. It does not reflect my experience.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks everyone for your input and opinions about this. I guess it's not a clear case and different players have different preferences, I guess I have to make up my own :)
 
joakiml said:
Thanks everyone for your input and opinions about this. I guess it's not a clear case and different players have different preferences, I guess I have to make up my own :)
Click to expand...

Good idea...given a choice, I would pick bone myself. Although, my old Martin has ebony saddle and nut, I believe and it sounds awesome, wouldn't change it for anything.

And, IMHO the nut would make very little difference in sound as long as it's not a soft plastic.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ukuleleden
  • Locked
FS: Koa Pili Koko (KPK) Deluxe Super Soprano w/ Bone Nut & Saddle
Replies
6
Views
644
ukuleleden
ukuleleden
PhilUSAFRet
Makai claims of Bone Nut and Saddle
Replies
11
Views
1K
PhilUSAFRet
PhilUSAFRet
R
What strings for Guilele? Also... bone nut and saddle swap?
Replies
4
Views
943
JonThysell
JonThysell
Vagrant
Bone Nut & Saddle - How Much?
Replies
5
Views
714
lauburu
L
Vagrant
Bruko Fixed! New Bone Nut and Saddle
Replies
3
Views
624
Vagrant
Vagrant
Top Bottom